Defense Secretary Panetta to offer a strategy for cutting the Pentagon budget.
Virginia is the next state to have a go at voter identification laws.
America's water infrastructure is leaky.
Some states can't (or won't) keep up with federal regulations, threatening their federal highway funding.
Maine legislature gets a new Native American representative.
Mom reunites with the child she gave up for adoption... 77 years ago.
World's first hybrid sharks discovered off Australia.
A cool reason to stay up late tonight (or get up early tomorrow).
Leave a Comment:
Got the date wrong and went out to shoot the shower THIS morning. OOPS!
Republicans are closing down voting booths and threatening folks that have the temerity to want to take part in their constitutional right to cast a ballot out of fear. The right is deathly afraid of the 99 percent of ordinary, poor and middle-class Americans that are fed up with the loopholes and benefits for the wealthy, fed up with a political party devoted to destroying the American Dream so Corporate America can send our jobs to China and make a fat profit. Investigate and prosecute. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Other than requiring voters to have a photo ID like Unions require of their members to vote, do you have any source for your accusation? Where have Republicans closed down voting booths and threatened folks? (my normal prediction applies, you can't/won't provide any objective source)
Robbie, you're on the wrong side of history here, my friend.
This isn't about the reasonableness of asking a voter to identify him/herself on election day at the polling place.
It isn't about the prevention of election fraud or registration fraud, either. When you register to vote, you must identify yourself and your place of abode and prove you are elegible to vote: i.e. your citizenship and age.
What these Voter ID laws - that ALEC has written and which have popped up in GOP/TeaParty-dominated state legislatures all over the country - are about is denying access to certain groups and classes of people. Thus, they are considered to be violations of the Voting Rights Act - at the very least. They are also, probably, unConstitutional. Any hindrance or tax or bar to an elegible voter exercising his/her franchise is illegal. Full stop.
You are incorrect. In Virginia, the state listed above, here is what you do...
You don't "prove" anything.
Notice my comment above addressed the accusation of closing voting places and/or threatening, not voter ID specifically, but I know the two can be tangentially linked.
That said, dear Carolina Lady, if voter IDs could be easily distributed so there was no cost or burden, would you then see it as a good thing?
Robbie: there will be a cost - even if only to take the pix and print them. Who will bear this? Taxpayers? Look...this doesn't make logical sense. The same people who want to institute these ID's are the same people who want to squeeze government funding until government fits in a bathtub via tax cutting and such.
The voter ID issue is about limiting the franchise. It's not reasonable; it's politics. It's unconstitutional.
RobDon,what do unions have to do with local and national elections other than your hatred of them?And why all of a sudden do we need these new voter laws.Why dont you show us the stats on voter fraud in the U.S.Granted there may be a few cases here and there but not enough to warrant these new laws.These laws threaten people in that if you dont jump through all these hoops you cant vote.Many poor and elderely dont happen to have a birth certificate lying around and cant afford or dont know how to get a copy.Which I believe locks these people out of voting booths.But then you probably think that they have no right to vote anyway.These new laws are nothing but power plays by republicans and their wealthy benefactors.Just look to Wisconsin and Walkers bogus conversation with the Koch bros.
I'm in a union and i'm not forced to vote for anything RobDon, please provide source. for this accusation.
this line is from the voter registration information from the Virginia.gov website
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/VoterRegistration/sbe_voter_app_DOJ-Printed.pdf
Voter ID laws are proposed amendments to the current system (voter registration). There isn't any compelling evidence that voter ID laws will somehow reduce the likelihood of voter fraud or that the inherent flaws w/ the registration system are somehow corrected by the voter ID addition. At this point in time it stands to reason that these laws are unnecessary pieces of legislation. SCOTUS has said that they can be enacted if they will secure the integrity of the vote, but there is currently no evidence suggesting that they actually do.
CarolinaLady, other states have hardship id guidelines that let people who don't have a driver's license and need a state ID for voting pay for it, those who can't get it for free (yes, at taxpayer cost but the total cost would be minimal). It is not unconstitutional says the Supreme Court.
Now, would you mind answering my question, if voter IDs could be easily distributed so there was no cost or burden, would you then see it as a good thing?
Joca,
You don't have to demonstrate fraud to enact sensible accountability. In almost every type of transaction in this country, one has to show some form of identification. Why? It ensures (with little burden and with a minimal level of certainty) that you are who you say you are. Why wouldn't we want the same level of accountability on the most valuable action we can take as citizens?
Ludwigtr, thanks for the contribution and the link. I only read from the website, not the application. It appears via federal law, the very first time you register (for most that's at 18) you are required to provide something with your name and address. After that, it is not necessary.
I'm not saying you are "forced to vote for anything" I was illustrating that a simple ID provides great accountability to a system even if not fraud exists. That's why unions require members to present an ID when they cast a union vote. I don't know if it is universal but here's a link to one such example:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70058.html
And lastly, Mouzer,
The SCOTUS did not say "if" it will secure the integrity of the vote, the court in its 6-3 ruling said requiring photo ID said it "did" bring integrity. The ruling acknowledged there was NO evidence of voter fraud but photo IDs were both appropriate and constitutional.
No it did not. The ruling stated that you can pass these laws to secure the vote since you can reasonably assume that voter fraud can happen. The SCOTUS ruling stated that if such laws were egregious then a later court could decide to overturn this rule, but that ID laws did not inherently amount to an egregiousness. SCOTUS did not exercise a claim as to efficacy of voter ID laws. What this means is that if it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the laws do not function to secure the integrity of the vote the ruling is defunct, which is what will likely happen as part of the challenges going to the circuit courts. The same goes for if you can show that an individual had to go to an egregious extent to be eligible to vote.
Asking for the federal government to pass a policy that has no factual basis for it's claim only supports intrusive government and red tape that serves no purpose. Remember also that SCOTUS was talking about laws put in place in lieu of registration laws. There still is no reason to assume that the registration is not efficient enough to stop voter fraud nor is there reason to assume that amending voter registration w/ the voter ID laws will somehow suddenly make the hypothetical less likely.
That should read *in lieu of or in addition to
I'd also like to add that by your very same logic, regarding the union ID law issue, that this means Republicans do not want to protect the integrity of their primaries by not requiring voter ID's to vote. The two are not the same.
I'm going to go ahead and ask this again. IF this is actually about voter integrity and verifying who you are, why isn't it done with SSN's? We all have them already.
Rachel's giddiness on the show last night has me actually interested in watching MSNBC's coverage of the Iowa thingy tonight.
If she can inspire a Rolling Stone, she can inspire anybody!
Will MSNBC be live-streamed on the internet tonight? I'd like to watch, too, but it's unlikely I'll be able to if it's not streamed.
the WaPo link has a paywall??
Odd.I don't remember them pushing so hard for this after the 2000 election.
So, Virginia will give you a voter's registration card but you can't use it to vote.
Do they know they make no sense?
You can't use the voter registration card as ID in Ohio. Been that way for at least the past 10 years.
You can't use the voter registration card as ID in Ohio. Been that way for at least the past 10 years.
A registration card proves a individual name/address has been registered, it does not prove that individual is YOU. There is a difference. Surely you understand that.
Sorry for the double post. Newsvine message indicated that the first one didn't go through.
Perhaps, Rob, this is part of the problem. In their zeal to enact these laws - while they're still in power - they are promoting confusion, distrust and in some cases apathy in voters. Is that what they really want? I don't know, but it seems like it.
Some current voters who don't have the needed paperwork have tried, and been unable to comply with the new demands. There are many questions which few people seem interested in answering. Exactly how many voters rights is it okay to impede before they back off and do it right?
This process could have easily been cycled in over the lifetime of voters' drivers licenses or been properly promoted to unlicensed voters via a year-long (or longer) state-based registration drive. Slamming new laws on the table and telling voters to deal with it wasn't the way to go. That's not what we pay these people for. We pay them to serve our best interest and minimize our need to directly govern. They seem to be taking advantage of that and many of us have a problem with that.
Should we be able to directly identify all voters? Sure. But, if that was so important, they should have enacted it a long time ago. Not when they're primary objective is to get Democrats out of office - specifically the President. If they really wanted to do this for the benefit of all, they would do it right - which is not what's happening now.
All these republicans are worried about voter integrity, but I don't think they understand that the common person isn't worried that someone is going to go out and pretend to be someone they're not and vote 10 times. The bigger issue, for me at least, is that our political process is bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations.
I feel like my voice doesn't matter because I don't have enough money for it to matter, not because the person next to me and I may or may not have an ID.
Ludwigtr, I share some of your concern. I think the political process is broken as well. There is a difference between the "voting process" and the "governing process." I think we can focus on both.
The voting process is affected by big money in that it is easy to better control the message with dollars and people who only casually pay attention are easily swayed. And once in office both parties seem to be controlled by those with the deepest pockets and not the American public at large.
Herman Cain: The Comic Book
It's the 25th in the series on political figures. Previous issues have spotlighted everyone from Sarah Palin to President Obama to Jon Stewart to Rush Limbaugh. They're basically unauthorized biographies, though this year the company has attempted to take a page from the Iowa Straw Poll by making a series of comics about the major candidates and telling people that the issue that sells the most wins a fake poll. Also, the latest issue out is Ron Paul's. Herman Cain's book is just a preview solicitation. It doesn't come out for another two months yet.
Still, it seems apt that he is a comic book now. And it's kind of funny that they're going ahead with it even after he dropped out of the race.
Meantime, as you may have heard, Rupert Murdoch is on Twitter now. And WaPo noticed something: He endorsed Rick Santorum.
"A spokesman for Gov. John Kasich, an outspoken supporter of the growing oil and natural gas industry in Ohio, said the shale industry shouldn't be punished for a fracking byproduct."
Statements like this make me want to give him a great big hug ... i think he needs a hug, after all, he is killing his Mother [the Earth, OUR Mother].
How much more before we come to consensus, and agree with the reality that Fracking is FRACKING INSANE! No amount of short term good generated by this can outweigh the consequences to our environment!
Who elected these guys anyway? Can Redistricting of Congressional Districts (still in Ohio with that connection) be considered voter tampering? I don't know ... Hey Rachel can i borrow your Aluminum Hat for a minute? :)
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oil-gas-fracking-wastewater-caused-11-earthquakes-ohio-seismologist-article-1.1000228#ixzz1iPlBRvux
The "shale industry" uses the damn fracking chemicals. Why shouldn't they be punished for polluting with them? If not the "shale industry", then who does Kasich think should be punished?
There ain't no hysteria like internet hysteria:
http://www.techpolicyinstitute.org/blog/2011/12/internet-hysteria-%e2%80%93-are-we-losing-our-edge/
Occupy Iowa caucus protesters storm Democrats' war room
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/02/occupy-iowa-democrats-war-room?fb=optOut
Obama campaigners on tumblr sent out a question, basically asking if we remembered where we were when Obama won Iowa in '88.
I replied that I was still supporting John Edwards at that point. He was the one warning us about Wall Street, remember?
So Edwards proved to be far less than we thought he was, and I voted for Obama (on New York state's Working Families Party line) when November rolled around.
However, just because Edwards and Spitzer didn't live up to our hopes doesn't mean that their issue is a bogus issue. As I said to the Obama campaign, let's hope this is a sword that Barack Obama finally gets around to picking up in his second term.
Dear TRMS people, or any MSNBC employees reading this.
Could you please go over to Chris Matthews' set and SLAP HIM?
It's, what, five minutes into his show and they've already used up comparisons to Dresden, Omaha Beach and Hiroshima?
Aaaaaarrrrrrgh.
Just-John, you are just-right! My wife loves Chris Matthews, and I respect his work, but there are times when I just want to stick my head through the TV and yell 'Shut Up!'. My beef, though, is mostly with him talking over the guests; I find it frustrating.
Still, he's there and he's doing a job...
Thanks, Lee J Rickard! (Which reminds me, NCIS -- with a Leroy J Gibbs character -- is new tonight, but starts right when the polls close. Oh well, it'll probably re-run sometime, unless [insert candidate name here] wins and blows up the world.)
But now MSNBC looks a lot better, since Rachel ... No! Don't throw it back to Tweety! Arrrgh!